Thursday, May 15, 2025
Blog Page 139

The Winners and Losers of the Men’s Grand Slams 2023

Krishna Gowda
-
0
The Winners and Losers of the Men’s Grand Slams 2023

The 2023 men’s tennis calendar certainly had fans anticipating big things, with fresh, young blood threatening to disrupt the status quo and upset the tennis hierarchy by challenging the top players. With the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open running throughout the year on three different surfaces, some players justified their ambitions of deep runs and slam victories, marked with strong performances, whilst others fell victim to shock losses in a mixed year for tennis’ elite. Below I discuss the winners and losers on tennis’ biggest stages in 2023:

Winner: Novak Djokovic

The biggest winner beyond any doubt, on the men’s tour this year in terms of slam performance. Djokovic’s imperious displays on the court resulted in three slam wins, with only Alcaraz’s five-set Wimbledon victory preventing Novak from achieving the elusive calendar slam. His supremacy was underlined by total domination in the other three finals, where he won 9-0 in sets against three opponents who have been touted as a new generation of champions. Even at the staggering age of thirty-six, Novak is not to be usurped and his trademark return game and mental strength have enabled him to claim a record-breaking 24th men’s singles slam, a record he has made little secret of wanting to hold, with his command showing little sign of ceasing.

Winner: Carlos Alcaraz

The only man who stood between Djokovic and a calendar slam this year and he is the potential successor to inherit the throne. Whilst only attaining one slam could be cynically regarded as an underachievement for Carlos, the numbers don’t tell the full story. Skipping the Australian due to injury before being swept aside by Novak in the semis at Roland Garros in a cramp-afflicted match, the 20-year-old admitted to nerves affecting him physically and mentally, a reminder of his rawness and inexperience at this level despite the hype. Despite this, success beckoned at Wimbledon; unfazed by the ghosts of Roland Garros, he held his nerve to overcome Djokovic in a thrilling five-setter, winning his second major title. Whilst he failed to defend his US title, a semi-final loss to an impressive Medvedev shouldn’t discredit his year at all and next year promises even greater things for Alcaraz.

Winner: Ben Shelton

Shelton has been the dark horse of the men’s tour, both winning plaudits and drawing criticism for his performances and certainly creating a media frenzy. A monstrous serve combined with an effective volley game and heavy groundstrokes catapulted him to the quarters at the Australian Open, with Alcaraz stating after their match later in August that Shelton hit the ball harder than anybody he had played against. Arguably, a lack of exposure at the elite level contributed to early-round exits at the French Open and Wimbledon before Shelton capped off the year on hard courts again at his home slam. He endured a seriously difficult run, facing four former slam semi-finalists, before coming up against Novak in the semis, who seemed to take exception with Shelton’s vigorous fist pumps and efforts to rouse both the crowd and himself. Djokovic made his sentiments clear at the end of the match when he mocked Shelton’s celebration, a ‘dialled-in’ phone gesture which Novak imitated, offering a frosty handshake. Nevertheless, a stellar year from Shelton yielded two runs to the quarters at minimum in his first full year on tour, a seriously impressive introduction.

Loser: Casper Ruud

It may be a potentially controversial take to suggest that Ruud has had a bad year, especially considering that he reached the French Open final, and dispatched formidable opponents such as Rune and Zverev en route. Although he was seen off by Novak comfortably, his run here promised a fruitful year. However, Ruud fell in the second round of the other three slams to opponents that should have been beaten by a player of his rank and calibre. His loss of form has been startling and he has struggled to find consistency throughout the year, resulting in very early-round exits, with players exposing severe vulnerabilities in his game. Ruud admitted that he needed to play a more aggressive style and hopefully adopting one will enable him to bounce back and have a more successful 2024 season.

Loser: Felix Auger Aliassime

It’s been a dire year for Felix at the slams, who suffered similar issues to Ruud – a severe lack of form and consistency. The twenty-three-year-old has been heralded for years as a possible successor who could win slams and lead the next generation, with his potential underlined by the addition of Toni Nadal, Rafa’s uncle and coach, to his coaching team last year. This faith was renewed by a strong 2022 season, where he won four titles and became just the third man to take Nadal to five sets at Roland Garros, promising a rewarding 2023. A fourth-round exit in Australia this year was an adequate result, albeit to a player on paper he should have beaten, but this was followed up by three successive first-round losses in the other slams, interspersed with other early round defeats in lower-level tournaments, suggestive of mentality issues too. A loss for him on his birthday at his home tournament to a much lower-ranked player in August epitomised his season and a break in the slams may be beneficial for helping him reset mentally.

Loser: Jannik Sinner

Branding Sinner a loser in the context of the grand slams this year is extremely harsh on the one hand; after all, a semi-final and two fourth-round runs are pretty similar results to Shelton, whose year has been a success. However, the relative ambitions of the players act as a key factor, and by Sinner’s account, it has probably been a somewhat underwhelming year for him. Sinner has been twinned with Alcaraz as the other potential heir to the throne once the older generation retires, with their rivalry compared to Federer and Nadal’s. However, whilst Alcaraz won his second slam, Sinner’s inability to make it count in the big moments has hindered his progress, underlined by his Wimbledon semi-final straight-set loss to Novak, whom Alcaraz overcame in the final. Sinner only bettered one slam result from last year, underperforming in the rest, leaving the door ajar for even newer talent like Rune to establish themselves as a stronger prospect. He is still an obvious candidate for future slams, but at present Sinner needs to take it a step further to match Alcaraz’s level and prevent him from getting left behind.

Image Credit: smarch0987 // CC0 1.0 DEED via Flickr

“Comedy is humanity’s highest art form”: In Conversation With David Mitchell

Freddie Evans
-
0
“Comedy is humanity’s highest art form”: In Conversation With David Mitchell

Freddie Evans and Sophie Magalhaes interview David Mitchell about the enduring appeal of “Peep Show”, insights into panel shows and improvisation, his new book “Unruly: A History of England’s Kings and Queens,” and advice for aspiring actors.

David Mitchell has been a reassuring fixture on British television screens for over two decades. You’ll most likely be familiar with his face and characteristic wit on display in his appearances on a variety of beloved British panel shows like “Would I Lie to You”, the popular series “Peep Show”, which he co-created and starred in, or his witty and insightful Observer column. Beyond his creative pursuits, Mitchell’s passion for history often influences his work, making him a unique and multifaceted figure in the world of arts and entertainment. His new book on the English monarchy, “Unruly”, was recently released on September 28.

You’ve had a successful career in both comedy and drama. How do you approach balancing these two genres, and do you prefer one over the other?

“I definitely prefer comedy. I think comedy is the best thing. I think it is humanity’s highest art form. I suppose in terms of performances, I haven’t done straight drama – most of the things I have done, there is something funny about it. I would probably make the argument that there aren’t many great dramas that are absolutely devoid of humour – a bit of it really helps. I would put myself as a comedian first and foremost.”

You’ve had a long-standing partnership with Robert Webb; from Peep Show to your comedy duo work. How important is comedic collaboration?

“It certainly helps. There are different forms of artistic expression, some of which you can do on your own, others of which you can’t. There is stand-up comedy, which I have never done – a solo form of comedy that you can craft on your own. Television comedy or drama, or any form of broadcasting, is a team thing. You need lots of people to make it happen – lots of people working hard to bring a television programme together, and you do well to remember how much you rely on the other people.

In terms of writing and performing, Rob and I found it incredibly helpful to not be on our own – especially at the start. It hugely helps – you are just massively less likely to be totally wrong about a comedic notion if one other person says, – No, I like that.”

Comedy often addresses societal issues and challenges. How do you see the role of comedy in commenting on or addressing important topics, and do you believe there are any boundaries when it comes to humour?

“The thing about comedy is you never know how it will go down. I don’t think there are any subjects which are inappropriate for comedy, but there are definitely jokes that shouldn’t have been made. Ultimately, it is an art form that is entirely justified or otherwise based on whether or not people laugh and like it.

Comedy should push boundaries. We, as a species, have an impish nature: we want to say the things we are told we shouldn’t say just for the rebellious thrill of it. Comedians will always go into those arenas, and it is a difficult time for that, largely because of the internet, which allows any piece of material to be plucked out, decontextualized, and then placed in front of thousands of people who might, in that decontextualized state, find it horrific. That doesn’t necessarily mean that when it was originally performed with an audience that was expecting more of that sort of thing, it wasn’t a perfectly OK thing to attempt to amuse with. Social media and the internet provide a whole new way for it to go wrong, but it is an old problem.”

“Peep Show” is considered a cult classic and has a dedicated fan base. What do you think it is about the show that resonated so well with viewers, and how has it impacted your career?

“It is a sitcom about two young men trying to figure out their lives, and a lot of people have had that experience. Even for people who haven’t, there are elements of it that reflect on the whole human condition – or at least the human condition in an affluent way. I speculate that’s why people liked it initially, and that’s what still draws people to it, particularly young people.

We knew we were shooting it in a slightly unusual way because that might get it a bit of attention, but we just wanted to make a series that people didn’t think was terrible. We were very pleased that people liked it, and it grew from there.

I was very lucky to stumble into a project like that so early on in my career. I am very, very proud of it. I am very happy to talk about it because it’s a difficult, insecure profession – show-business. To have anything that succeeds is unusual, so I think you have to cherish those things. Obviously, I want to do other and different things, but I am very happy that it is a part of my life. It’s the kind of show I wanted to make and has kind of been the only guiding principle of my career.”

Panel shows often require quick wit and improvisational skills. How do you prepare and what’s the secret to a successful panel show appearance?

“My feeling is that you can’t go in with a set of jokes you want to make because there are parts of my brain that remember things and parts that make things up, and they don’t work well together.

When I’m going into a situation where I might want to say something specific, I won’t listen to what other people are saying, and I’ll miss opportunities to say things that come out naturally in the live conversation. These off-the-cuff remarks often turn out better because they are of-the-moment. It’s the alchemy of the people involved and the conversational situation that they are put in that leads to comic invention different from what those people would have invented at home.

The best panel shows, in my opinion, come from individuals who show up in good spirits in front of an audience they are eager not to disappoint. They try to engage in funny banter within the structure provided by skilled programme makers. When it comes to the parts of the show that aren’t as good as the rest, you can always edit them out later.”

 “Unruly: The History of England’s Kings and Queens”. What inspired you to explore this topic, and what can readers expect from the book?

“I hope it’s a funny book, but it’s also a proper history of England’s monarchy from the Anglo-Saxons to 1603. There’s a lot to find absurd and funny about the past because, obviously, living in it (the Middle Ages) was dreadful, and most people lived in depths of misery that we can barely conceive of today.

So, looking at it with a lens of absurdity and humour, I think, without being offensive to the poor people who had to live through it, the comedy naturally arises from the truth of it. This approach is like my Observer column, where I attempt to find the funny, ridiculous, daft, and infuriating in the news and apply that to events from a long time ago.

All humans, in a way, want to see the world explained, and for me, that comes through history. During the lockdown, I was looking for some creativities to come from it and thinking about the Vikings and realized that their sudden coming and terrorizing of the English coastline was a bit like COVID – something that came out of the blue and ruined people’s lives. Viewing it that way was strangely comforting and quite funny. It reminded me that history isn’t just about great men and women or grand trends; sometimes, something random happens and screws things up for a lot of people, like rain at a garden party.

I enjoyed writing about it and had reached about 30,000 words on the Anglo-Saxons. I thought, “Well, maybe there’s a book in this.” I decided to focus on England’s monarchy, starting from the Dark Ages and medieval times, leading up to the merger with the Scottish monarchy in 1603.”

What advice do you have for young individuals aspiring to make a career in the entertainment industry, and how did you navigate the early stages of your career?

“Finding collaborators whom you like, admire, and are willing to commit to, and who are willing to commit to you, is a great way to enter into the world of comedy.

If you want to perform, also try to write if you can. Writing gives you significantly more leverage and control – you can always be writing, but you can’t always be performing. If you aren’t getting performance opportunities, writing can help you create them for yourself.

The Edinburgh Fringe was a huge thing for Rob and me. We went there every year, and it’s a place where many influential people in show-business attend. They often check out new talent. The key thing is to keep trying. Don’t give up unless, of course, you can give up, in which case, explore other options. But if you feel deeply that this is your calling in life, then go for it, keep trying. The more you roll the dice, the more likely you are to get a favourable outcome.

I recall someone from my university years who wrote to a very famous actress (I can’t remember who) seeking advice about becoming an actor and expressing concerns about the profession. The reply was quite brutal: “If you think of being an actor, don’t. If you have to be an actor, go for it, and I wish you luck.” There’s some truth in that. It’s an insecure profession, and if you must do it, then go all in. You need a bit of luck, and to have luck, you have to be there for a long time, waiting for your opportunity. The key thing is, if you know in your heart that you want to be in this profession and you’re willing to keep trying until you succeed, then go for it – try everything, and you’ll get there.”

David Mitchell will be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman live on stage at New Theatre Oxford on October 16th. Tickets (beginning £24) can be bought at the box office or at https://www.atgtickets.com/shows/unruly-in-conversation-with-david-mitchell–his-new-book/new-theatre-oxford/. Tickets include a copy of ‘UNRULY: A History of England’s Kings and Queens’.

Bottom of the pile: freedom of speech at Oxford

Jakub Trybull
-
0
Bottom of the pile: freedom of speech at Oxford

“Free speech is the lifeblood of a university.” So begins Oxford’s policy on freedom of speech. Followed by the tasteful poetry of triplets and metaphor, the policy explains how this fundamental right allows for the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and enables nuance and perspective to diversify debate in ways it otherwise might not have. 

This article won’t debate whether absolute freedom of speech is the pinnacle of individual and societal liberty. History reminds us what atrocities can emerge when this right is taken away whilst the modern day warns us of the tendency for hate speech to turn to violence. The answer, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. 

I was helping with a News article about Oxford falling to second place in The Times’ UK University ranking the other day. Thinking about how devastating this must be for the prideful Oxford student, I had a look at the results from the National Student Survey (NSS), an annual survey sent to half a million students by the Office for Students (OfS) with questions on seven topics: on-course teaching, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management, learning resources, and student voice.

Crucially, the survey this year included an unprecedented new question, Q27, which asked students:

“During your studies, how free did you feel to express your ideas, opinions, and beliefs?”

Its inclusion comes amid free speech rows on campuses in recent months and the passing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act earlier this year. The Act intends to preserve and enshrine freedom of speech by imposing fines on higher education providers and student unions if there are any breaches. Sounds like a liberal dream to me. 

After some number crunching, I realised that, in response to Q27, Oxford ranked first amongst Russell Group universities* for freedom of expression whilst most others faltered on this level. 

For Q27, Oxford obtained a positivity measure of 90.8, followed closely by Imperial College London with 90.1. Essentially meaning that the vast majority (90.8%) of Oxford students felt positively about their freedom to share their views on campus. Whilst the lowest ranking Russell Group university was Manchester with just 82.5 – not so charming, man.

Although, five of the Group’s universities denied their right to express an opinion, with student unions at other campuses such as Cambridge holding boycotts against the NSS on “education marketisation” grounds which is interesting given the Higher Education Act’s ‘free speech tsar’ is coincidentally a Cambridge philosophy professor. The Oxford SU also took part in boycotts between 2017 and 2022 over concerns that the survey would be linked to the Teaching Excellence Framework and could result in higher fees for high-performing universities. Although the boycott’s historic effect is still present, it seems, in Oxford’s low response rate of 50.2%.

The survey also revealed that, of the Group members included (19 to be exact), 13 were below their individual benchmarks for free speech, with Manchester being the greatest outlier at -3.1 percentage points. Overall, the Group’s weighted average score was 85.2, just below its benchmark of 85.8, implying below satisfactory free speech protections.

Oxford’s NSS triumph may come as a shock. In a Cherwell poll (16th of September 2023), we asked our followers the same question (Q27). Of 168 respondents, 34 (20%) said that their free speech was mostly restricted while 3 (2%) said they were completely restricted. On the other hand, 81 (48%) said their free speech was mostly free and 50 (30%) were completely confident in that freedom. Using these results, the positivity score might be closer to 68.7, much lower than the NSS score.

Oxford’s role in the wider debate on free speech on campus has always been front and centre. Former Prime Minister and Oxford graduate, Boris Johnson’s 2019 manifesto included a pledge to “strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities.” 

Then in March 2020, UN Women Oxford UK’s de-platforming of former Home Secretary Amber Rudd resulted in vast criticism from JCR Presidents, de-registration as a student society, and ministers calling for strengthening the Office for Students’ powers to ensure free speech.

Later that year, the Student Union (SU) passed an ‘Academic Hate Speech’ motion condemning the “hateful material in mandatory teaching”, to which the University highlighted their free speech policy. This scuffle quite literally created laws, providing the backdrop for new regulation such as the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Act to be passed.

History repeats itself with Kathleen Stock’s talk at the Oxford Union (OU) last term having reignited the debate. Protests were staged against Stock, academics from both sides sent open letters, and the SU (unsuccessfully) attempted to ban the OU from the Freshers’ Fair. Like before, Oxford’s reaction to controversial speakers wasn’t contained to OX1. Instead, national papers joined the narrative prompting a country-wide conversation on free speech and even got a comment from the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak (yet another Oxford graduate…)

With all this considered it’s clear that free speech is no small nor easy topic, and its relationship with Oxford is ubiquitous. It is weaved into our tutorial system, into our societies, into our politics by our Oxford-educated prime ministers, and into our national media. Whether we think we have strong protections for free speech or that cancel culture is rife in our University, one thing is certain: we are talking about freedom of speech and we are loud.

–

*Russell Group members included Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, Exeter, Imperial College London, King’s College London, Leeds, Liverpool, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Queen Mary University of London, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London, Warwick, York.

EXCLUDING Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Queen’s University Belfast.

Trump, the American left, and political ‘Voldemorts’

Jessica Tabraham
-
0
Trump, the American left, and political ‘Voldemorts’

Trump burst onto the American and global political landscape eight years ago and it feels as though we have not stopped talking about him since. I understand the resultant reticence to discuss Trump, especially given the recent cultural discussion regarding platforming. However, I think the political left, both in the US and the UK are in danger of playing into the hands of Trump and others like him. A year out from the 2024 Presidential election, I think we need to change the way we talk about Trump and the populist right. 

Trump is on track to become the Republican nominee and a recent ABC poll not only projects a Trump victory in the Republican primary but a Trump victory against Biden by ten points, comfortably above the margin of error. This article is not intended as a hack piece of scaremongering, but, I do think we need to at least consider the worst outcome. We need to stop talking about how ludicrous the idea of Trump running is, and instead work out how to fight him if he does. 

In January 2021, during the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, both Facebook and Twitter banned Trump from their platforms. At the time I welcomed this decision. I thought that both companies made the decision far too late and only made it when they realised Trump was no longer their moneymaker; but, I thought the most important thing was that the decision was made. The brief period of time where Trump was absent from our media discourse is also the time where the political left learnt an ostensibly valuable lesson: that talking about Trump only added to his power and creating endless discourse about him gifted him a status and political validity he did not deserve. At the time, I agreed with the collective lesson. I was bored with Trump. The media landscape was oversaturated with him. I just wanted him to go away. 

Now I’m not so sure this is the lesson we should have learned. The reticence to discuss Trump as a mainstream political figure has imbued him with an almost Voldemort-esque quality (not He Who Must Be Named but He Who Must Not Be Talked About). Before his Musk-sanctioned return to Twitter, Trump created his own platform Truth Social which appeared to be a failure. Trump did not have access to a mass audience; however, this does not necessarily constitute a failure and could in fact be an integral cog in his political strategy machine. Post-insurrection, Trump has aligned himself even further with the alt-right community which now includes alleged rapist Russell Brand, who has somehow managed to shapeshift from a Marxist to the ally of Tucker Carlson and Ron de Santis. Russell Brand’s YouTube channel ‘Stay Free’ operates with the same faux-martyred ethos as Trump’s ‘Truth Social’. For years, Brand has been cultivating a cult-like following whom he feeds with rants about the ‘mainstream media’ of which he is very much part. Brand was able to undergo such a transformation right under our noses because we do not take the alt-right community seriously enough. We need to interrogate it as we would any political discourse because nonchalantly dismissing it has not worked. 

Attacking Trump on the insurrection has not resulted in his political condemnation. In the first Republican primary debate seven out of eight candidates pledged to pardon Trump. When Trump left office, polling showed that 38% of Americans approved of his job performance. Now, that same poll has found that 48% of Americans approve of his job performance. I think it was important to impeach and indict Trump, placing our faith in the rule of law and democratic systems. However, we need to come to terms with the fact that the indictments may have helped Trump more than they have hindered him. Trump is using the insurrection and its subsequent indictments to recreate the way he entered the political landscape in 2016: as an outsider. It was ridiculous that in 2016 a wealthy businessman was able to label himself as an outsider; but, it is even more ridiculous now when that man has been the President of the United States. Trump built said rebel-outsider status by denouncing the Washington ‘blob’ and emphasising the history of the Clinton name in American politics. Now, his attack line is hauntingly similar with the weaponisation of Hunter Biden and the moniker of ‘the Biden Crime Family’. We did not take Trump seriously in 2016 and we suffered the consequences. The left were complacent in 2016 and we cannot enter the campaigning period with that same complacency. 

We are living in a political world that is rapidly being divided into ‘the establishment’ and ‘truthtellers’. In an attempt to find a chink in their armour, I decided to try and listen to what these ‘truthtellers’ had to say. Russell Brand’s channel boasts 6.5 million subscribers and one of the most viewed interviews is his hour long episode with disgraced Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Within the first five minutes Carlson, a man who has made his career in politics, states the following:

I’m not interested in politics. I’ve never been interested in politics. I’m interested in ideas and I’m interested in people. 

Flip this, and you have the solution to fighting him and all the tenants of the alt-right house. Trump will attempt to trick the electorate into thinking he is not a politician and it is from this engineered outsider status that he will aim his attacks. This man was President of the United States. Stop fighting Trump the person and start fighting Trump the politician. Trump is part of a growing right-wing movement which shuns mainstream media and the scrutiny that comes with it. Boris Johnson refused a long form interview with Andrew Marr in 2019 and Liz Truss refused any type of long form interview during her premiership. Increasingly, the political right are trying to evade the spotlight of the mainstream media because they are trying to hide the fact they are politicians. As politicians they owe the public the right to scrutiny. Trump, Johnson and Truss label themselves as ‘ideas people’: as radicals, rebels, martyrs and misunderstood geniuses. They are none of the above. They are politicians and it is time we started treating them as such.The success of alt-right media has been its relative insularity. Politicians of the left and centre do not touch it. The ‘truthtellers’ preach on their independent platforms to their cultivated choirs. The way to beat them is there- they just don’t think we’re listening. Naomi Klein’s new book Doppelganger details the existence of the alt-right ‘Mirror World’, which functions as a palimpsestic underbelly to mainstream political discourse. Instead of being scared of this world we need to interrogate it. Interrogating is not platforming, we are way past that point, alt-right rhetoric does not feel so alternative anymore. Instead, I suggest we take Klein’s metaphor and hold up a mirror to this world and its people. It is time that we held a mirror up to Trump so that the electorate can see him for the politician he really is.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0 deed via Wikimedia commons

£27,000 for a library card?

Kate Monaghan
-
0
£27,000 for a library card?

I’m writing this over the summer vac in the library of my local university, which is considered to be in a league below Oxford. I’m sure this is true in some respects, but sitting here I can’t help but wonder what really makes Oxford better for my degree – history – than anywhere else.

I love Oxford, but I love it predominantly for reasons other than the education, which feels somewhat wrong. Anyone will attest this is a common Oxford theme: everyone loves to talk about how they wrote their last essay in five minutes. Literary Oxford is arguably more famous for hedonistic layabouts than devoted academics: Evelyn Waugh’s alcoholics and drop-outs (and Waugh himself, who despised Hertford and confessed ‘I do no work here and never go to Chapel’); Martin Amis characters who ‘read sex at Oxford’; the many now successful people who regarded their degree as more of a distracting hobby and graduated with flippant thirds.

While writing this I came across a Times article by Giles Coren that describes just what I’m talking about, reading in part: ‘One goes to Oxford precisely because the teaching is rubbish, nothing is compulsory, tutorials are optional after first week, and nobody ever, ever talks about careers. If you want to be taught and pass exams and become a lawyer, don’t you go to a red brick? Or Cambridge? Oxford is for drinking and playing tennis and nicking books out of the Bod under your cricket jumper and lobbing them at punting tourists from Magdalen Bridge.’ I won’t lie – my immediate reaction was: fantastic stuff, no notes. But then I thought about it more, and while this Brideshead Revisited sentiment is all very romantic, and a semi-reasonable thing to say back when university was free (or if you were somebody who didn’t have to worry about that anyway), it is really quite absurd to borrow or pay almost thirty thousand pounds to be told to read some books, and then choose not to read them.

When I think about this, I’m reminded of the scene in Good Will Hunting in which Will mocks Clark, a Harvard-educated bully, for having ‘dropped $150,000 on an education [Clark] coulda got for a dollar fifty in late fees at the public library.’ Clark retorts, ‘Yeah, but I’ll have a degree’, and Will, despite having just shown that he knows more than Clark, can’t argue with that. When the degree matters so much more than the knowledge acquired from the degree, the goal is not education or erudition, but the qualification itself, turning it into a brand or a product, something which can be purchased. It turns out not to be all that absurd that we don’t prioritise studying. The degree isn’t really about the books at all, and if you can get it without reading them properly, why bother?

People who talk about ‘paying thirty grand for a library card’ tend to be people who think the humanities are a self-indulgent waste of time: this isn’t what I’m saying. I don’t think the liberal arts are pointless; I think they deserve to be better. Oxford tells us to spend 40 hours per week on our degree, and for humanities students 90% of it is spent reading alone. This isn’t some random, exaggerated number: it actually is 90. Those of us doing history have three tutorials every two weeks, plus two or so lectures a week, and a class a week if we’re lucky – coming to a very optimistic eighteen contact hours out of 160 study hours a month, which is 11.25%. Of course, humanities degrees are by and large about reading, and spending many hours reading alone is unavoidable. But it shouldn’t feel like we’re just reading alone. It feels like a tragic missed opportunity to be taught by and among so many intelligent and knowledgeable people and only get to discuss the things we’ve all studied if somebody takes it upon themselves to start the conversation. It wasn’t until Hilary of second year that I had any classes at all, not until Trinity of the same year that I had classes with the other history students in my college – which I think is insane. Of course we discussed the things we studied together before this, but in our own time, and informally: why didn’t we have to do it for over a year?

The point of a liberal arts degree, the difference between it and simply going to the library, is supposed to be the opportunity for discussion with and instruction by some of the best minds. This is what the tutorial system intends to provide: the unique opportunity to have Socratic conversations with a leading expert in the field about a piece you’ve written, in which they treat you like an intellectual equal. I’m not sure if it succeeds. In practice, tutorials are more of a bizarre pretence that, after reading about something for a week and writing a few pages about it, we have nuanced enough opinions to have an equal conversation with someone who has devoted their whole life to it. Even after two years of this, in tutorials I still find it difficult to override the feeling that I should just let the expert talk – and I don’t think it’s always wrong to feel that way. When my tutorials are about topics on which I have genuine opinions, which they often are, I don’t have a problem defending my point of view. But when it’s something I don’t feel I know enough about, I don’t like having to pretend I know (as tutors will criticise you for not being opinionated enough). It seems remarkably unintellectual. It also seems like many problems, such as politicians artfully dodging questions, are reflected in, or in many cases actually nurtured by, the Oxford tutorial system.

Some have criticised tutorials, but while I think the concept is noble, things could be a lot better. The tutorial system still demands public-school arrogance, expecting students fresh from A-level to be confident enough to challenge tutors with decades of experience. Pre-existing barriers like this are difficult to break down but this doesn’t mean that we should ignore them. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to see our tutors more often, so that they become less of a scary, semi-anonymous figure associated predominantly with essay deadlines? And to have more classes and have them sooner, so that we aren’t always only talking to the expert? This isn’t a criticism of tutors themselves: I know many of them are more than willing to spend extra time with us if we ask for it, but real teaching should be a guarantee, not something that only happens when tutors overstretch themselves. Surely Oxford itself has the money and resources to give us more than a glorified library card and an hour a week.

Image credit:Diliff/ CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed via Wikimedia commons

Caretaker PM of Pakistan visits the Oxford Union

Cem Kozanoglu
-
0
Caretaker PM of Pakistan visits the Oxford Union

The Union welcomed Caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on Tuesday for a Q&A. Held in a packed Gladstone room, Kakar was on the defensive, justifying his government’s efforts for free and fair elections, while rejecting that he is clamping down on press freedom and the right to assembly in the name of the military. 

Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, a previously little-known senator with a background in geopolitics and close ties to the military, was appointed caretaker prime minister after parliament was dissolved in early August. Although the law requires an election to be held within 90 days, the latest census requires redrawing political boundaries, which will take some time. This means that Kakar’s mandate could be extended to 6 months, giving him an important role in the upcoming elections. 

The event was chaired by Union President Disha Hegde, who started by asking Kakar about the government’s plans for the upcoming elections in the country.

Kakar responded to concerns about the legality of election delays by referring to Article 254 of the constitution, which makes room for delays in governmental procedures. He followed up his technical response by underscoring that the franchise is universal and that the government is obligated to factor in the latest census.

When pushed by the President to give up a provisional date for the election, Kakar stated that such an act would be “unlawful”, as the Pakistani Electoral Commission is the body charged with organising the election, not the Caretaker PM. 

The government’s alleged repression of opponents, following the protests and riots against the military that broke out after ex-PM Khan’s first arrest on 9 May, was also addressed. Kakar called these allegations unfounded and replied that he was following the rule of law as a civil functionary by prosecuting those charged with “arson and vandalism”, regardless of their politics. 

He said that members of the PTI are free to organise and mobilise support, as long as they stay within legal boundaries. He unequivocally stated: “Are we going to stop [the PTI] from contesting the election: No. Are we going to bar Imran Khan from the elections: No.” 

Hegde then questioned the Caretaker PM’s neutrality, highlighting that his cabinet is made up of officials from one party. Kakar cited the PTI’s decision to resign from parliament in protest for the one-sidedness of his government, calling it a “faux pas” which had cost them the ability to have a say in his appointment. 

Pakistan’s slide on the press freedom index and the government’s responsibility to uphold press freedom was next on the agenda. The Caretaker PM pointed to the fact that South Asia in general scored badly in such indexes, stating that critical coverage of his government shows that the press is free. 

He responded to claims that journalists were “frightened into silence” by adding that without “substantive evidence” of intimidation, these were “imaginative fears”. 

The discussion continued onto the overbearing role of the military in Pakistan. While the Caretaker PM accepted that “[n]obody can deny there is a civil-military imbalance in the country”, he argued that this imbalance was fuelled by “civil incompetence” compared to the “increased capability of the military.”

He said further that the military is discriminated against and that Western media too often “accepts as fact” criticisms of the military based on “hearsay.” He projected Pakistan’s future along one of two paths: An anti-military uprising akin to the “French revolution with its guillotines unleashed”, or a peaceful transition to civil power achieved through collaboration with the military. He added his personal preference for the latter option.

Hegde’s final question concerned the latest IMF bailout, and the allegations that it was brokered by the US in exchange for an arms deal with Ukraine and accepted to keep the government afloat while it repressed its opponents.

The Caretaker PM called these allegations “speculations” and portrayed himself as a defender of the liberal democratic order, comparing his crackdown on rioters to the FBI’s crackdown following the January 6 Capitol attacks. 

Questions were opened up for Union members 40 minutes into the event, starting with one about raids into Pakistan across the Afghan border. The Caretaker PM became noticeably more energetic and animated compared to the preceding confrontational questions, as he emphasised the importance of collaboration with the Afghan government to curb terror.

The second question was the most confrontational of the event, with the member saying that “according to the Pakistani mainstream press, the only problem with the country is Khan and the PTI”, quoting a speech by the Caretaker PM where he had allegedly said “free and transparent elections could be held without Imran Khan.”

The Caretaker PM started his response by asking if he could refer to the member as “my dear sister”, and asking if his “dear sister” had watched “the full interview from the source”. When the member’s response was negative, he stated that she had been misinformed and told her that all citizens had a “moral responsibility” to verify their information sources. 

The remaining two questions addressed the government’s efforts to keep Pakistanis from emigrating and the protection of religious minorities. For the first question Kakar said he preferred to see brain drain as “brain assets”. As for religious minorities, he insisted that Pakistan should be defined by its good intentions to protect freedom of religion, not by its few shortcomings to do so.

Oxford tops worldwide university rankings

Oliver Adelson
-
0
Oxford tops worldwide university rankings

The University of Oxford has placed first in the 2024 Times Higher Education (THE) University Rankings. This is the eighth consecutive year THE has named Oxford the best university in the world – the last university besides Oxford to top the charts was the California Institute of Technology in 2016.

In second and third place this year were Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The next UK universities on the list were the University of Cambridge, which placed fifth, and Imperial College London, which placed eighth. Apart from these three British universities, the top ten positions were exclusively occupied by American institutions. 

The Times Higher Education rankings come just weeks after The Sunday Times and The Times “Good University Rankings” (UK only), in which Oxford placed second behind St Andrew’s. 

The Vice-Chancellor of Oxford welcomed the release of THE’s rankings, writing: “I am absolutely thrilled Oxford has been once again named the top university in the world. Eight years of leading the Times Higher Education world rankings is a testament to the impactful research we conduct that tackles some of the grand challenges facing people and the planet as well as the exceptional standards of teaching we deliver that will continue to inspire generations to come. 

“I am filled with admiration for my colleagues and gratitude for all their efforts that propel this unique institution forwards.”

In response to the rankings, one third-year undergraduate student at St. Hugh’s indicated that he had expected Oxford to place first. He told Cherwell, “It’s nice to know that we’re still the best, though hardly surprising given that we’ve held that position for the last seven years.”

Lost In Hugh’s: The Oxford Open Doors Festival

Matthew Unwin
-
0
Lost In Hugh’s: The Oxford Open Doors Festival

Over the 9th and 10th of September, dozens of colleges across Oxford opened up to the public for the Oxford Open Doors Festival. Alongside colleges, the festival also saw various other buildings open their doors, including Oxford University Press, Examination Schools and the Randolph Hotel, with many also hosting free tours and exhibitions. 

Of course, many of these colleges and buildings are technically open to the public normally, but with the caveats of restrictive opening hours, nominal entry fees and unenthusiastic porters. In contrast, the festival provided a very welcoming atmosphere for people to come in for free. 

The event was co-ordinated by the Oxford Preservation Trust, a charity responsible for renovating various buildings around Oxford, including the Covered Market, and since its inception fifteen years ago, the annual festival has seen an ever increasing number of buildings taking part: this year saw over one hundred and twenty doors open for people to explore.

I was quickly struck by how nice it was to see large groups of people looking around the colleges, especially without the eyes we students have — I’ve always thought that there’s only so many times you can go to the Rad Cam mid-essay crisis before you stop looking up and appreciating how beautiful it is. 

Regardless, as someone who’s a bit of a sucker for tourism, and who has always wanted to visit all of Oxford’s colleges, it provided a good excuse to tick a few off the bucket list. So myself and my friend decided to go for a wander…

St Peter’s

We began our tourist jaunt at St Peter’s. Saint Peter is said to guard the gates to heaven; the gates to St Peter’s College were guarded by a rather friendly porter. As we stepped through the Plodge, he welcomed us in and handed us a map. Walking into the first quad revealed dozens of fellow tourists also exploring the college grounds.

St Peter’s College, Image Credits: Matt Unwin

St John’s

After St Peter, we moved on to St John’s. Again, we were greeted by a very kind guide who had set up a table at the entrance to the college from which she dispensed guidebooks detailing some historical context on each of the quads. Did you know — for example — that the front quad originally belonged to the long-defunct St Bernard’s College? As a result, the original statue of St Bernard needed to be replaced with one of St John. Oxford colleges being well-known for their frugality, they decided they could save some money by not replacing the statue outright but converting it, which was achieved by sticking on a plaster beard. Again, something I’d never noticed through my student eyes, stumbling through the quad to a friend’s room at 3 am. Cracking stuff.

St John’s College, Image Credits: Matt Unwin

Like Peter’s, the college was a delightful collection of sandstone architecture. The wide, spacious gardens and the modern Garden Quad were particular highlights. The auditorium of Garden Quad hosted a lecture on the history of the college, and the room next door to that featured an exhibition on the layout of the garden. We quickly found that St John’s were hosting all sorts of exhibitions on esoteric topics of college history. They really went overboard with this stuff, including an entire room dedicated to maps cataloguing every single type of tree on the college grounds.

In addition to the exhibitions, the college also hosted a treasure hunt. I asked one of the helpers what you could win in this treasure hunt, and he grandly pulled back the sheet draped over the table he sat at to reveal a box filled with — as he put it — ‘St John’s tat’. There was an ample selection of water bottles and college merch to get your hands on.

Green Templeton

From St John’s, we strolled to Green Templeton. I’ve always found Green Templeton a bit enigmatic. As the guide on the door explained to us, the college stands on the site of the former Radcliffe Observatory. Thus, Green Templeton’s exhibitions focused on astronomy and the college’s history. It all reminded this author of a school fair: the college had hired out an ice cream van, which sat parked in the main quad, and along the lawn, they had assembled a variety of stalls showcasing models of telescopes and astronomy-themed games for children. Tour guides showed people up the college’s tower, with a rather exasperated woman warning everyone not to get too close to the bannister of the staircase in case it collapsed.

What the college lacked in structurally stable staircases, it made up for in views. The top observatory room of the tower, with its huge windows, provided a lovely view of Oxford. Perilously, we journeyed back down the staircase and exited the college to our next location…

Green Templeton College, Image Credit: Matt Unwin

St Hugh’s

By virtue of it being so far away, it seemed few people had come to visit Hugh’s. The college seemed abandoned. One of the few living souls we saw was a very nice man who sat at a table by the door and gave us a brief blurb of the history of the college — one of the first to admit women. He offered us a map, but only on the proviso that we give it back to him on the way out: he pointed to a rather paltry ‘stack’ of two maps on the table and explained that this was all he had left. It was unclear whether a huge group of tourists had come in that morning and cleared him out, or whether St Hugh’s had been so sceptical of anyone coming to visit them that they’d only printed two maps.

We wandered around the grounds of the college and around the garden, which felt somewhat like walking around the grounds of a stately home — albeit an abandoned one. We saw no one else there.

Then, while walking through one of the gardens, we detected life. We heard music and could smell the sizzling aroma of a barbecue. We followed our noses and ears to the source and stumbled through a hedge into a garden that was a veritable Eden of food and drink. At least two dozen people sat on deck chairs and at tables eating food. Finally, we thought, we’d found where everyone was! Staff moved up and down serving huge heapings of strawberries and cream, hamburgers sizzled on grills, people carved up slices of delectable-looking chocolate cake. In the corner of the garden, a brass band played. We were a bit confused as to why they hadn’t advertised this when we came in. It put the other college’s offerings to shame.

With our stomachs rumbling, we wandered towards one of the grills to help ourselves to some food… only to glimpse a sign saying ‘Staff Barbecue’. We were soon shooed away. 

Thus ended our time at St Hugh’s.

Overall, the Oxford Open Doors Festival provided a great opportunity to get another perspective on many of the buildings that form the backdrop to our everyday lives in Oxford. It was a lovely experience, and I’ll certainly be going next year. Next time, though, I’ll be wearing a shirt and tie, in order to better crash the St Hugh’s staff barbecue…

Linacre College drops proposed name change after Thao donation blocked

Jakub Trybull
-
0
Linacre College drops proposed name change after Thao donation blocked

The proposed name change of Linacre College to ‘Thao College’ has been dropped after the “transformative donation” to the College failed to materialise due to restrictions in Vietnam.

Two years ago the college announced that it would be receiving a £155 million donation from SOVICO Group, and that it was planning to change its name to ‘Thao college’ after the conglomerate’s chairwoman and Vietnamese billionaire, Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao. However, according to The Telegraph, alumni were told that the college no longer expects to receive the funds due to restrictions on outward donations imposed by the Vietnamese government.

The donation had previously been criticised for transfering money out of Vietnam, which is poorer than the UK, as well as being under investigation by the UK government for Ms. Thao’s alleged links to the Communist government of Vietnam. In 2022, Ms. Thao was also caught up in a High Court legal claim involving a similar sum of money as the “landmark gift”.

Other concerns raised by alumni to Cherwell included discomfort over what some saw as an attempt by a foreign billionaire to associate their name with the prestige of an Oxford college while its current name derives from Thomas Linacre, an English physician and humanist scholar.

At the time, Maria Kawthar Daouda, a lecturer at Oriel College, wrote in a letter to the Daily Mail: “There is a lot in its name none the less. It bears a deep history and should not be altered just because a major gift has been made. Gratitude for Mrs Thao’s money could be expressed in ways that do not erase what the donation is meant to protect.”

While it is not unusual for Oxford Colleges to be named after benefactors, as has been the case with Lincoln, Wadham, and Balliol Colleges, concerns were raised about what message this sends to potential or future donors.

Similarly, after it was first announced, climate group Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OUJC) criticised the College’s decision to accept the donation claiming that SOVICO has worked alongside fossil fuel companies, including the Russian oil company Zarbezneft.

Noting that their concern that it may contradict other Oxford policies on net-zero,

OUJC told Cherwell: “Given that no company involved in fossil fuel extraction or aviation has been able to meet these standards we seriously doubt whether SOVICO group’s own promise to become net-zero represents anything other than greenwashing.”

Linacre is one of Oxford’s youngest colleges, founded in 1962 as a graduate society for men and women. It became an independent college of the University in 1986 via Royal Charter. The donation was to be used to fund scholarships and the construction of a new graduate centre. A significant part of the donation was intended to go towards the College’s general endowment fund, which totalled £17.7 million in 2018, to support the daily running of the College.

Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao has an estimated net worth of $2.1 billion, which has dropped from about $3.1 billion in 2022. Alongside her position as President of SOVICO Group, she has investments in HD Bank and real estate, including three beach resorts. She is currently ranked in 1368th place on Forbes’ list of the world’s richest billionaires.

Linacre College, the University of Oxford, and SOVICO Group have all been approached for comment.

1...138139140...2,494Page 139 of 2,494

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley